Shepherd writeup
rfc8873-24

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document 
Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time.

This version is dated 1 November 2019.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? 

Proposed Standard, shown as "Standards Track", which is appropriate since it is providing normative specification of how to use MSRP as subprotocol in WebRTC data channels.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: 

Technical Summary:

Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction. 

This document specifies how the Message Session Relay Protocol (MSRP)
can be transported as a WebRTC data channel sub-protocol, using the
SDP offer/answer generic data channel negotiation framework to
establish such a channel.  Two network configurations are supported:
connecting two MSRP over data channel endpoints; and a gateway
configuration, connecting an MSRP over data channel endpoint with an
MSRP over TCP or TLS endpoint.  This document updates RFC 4975.
 

Working Group Summary:

Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? 

The WG document was expired for almost a year, twice, due to unresponsive authors, despite repeated efforts to encourage authors and trying to find other people willing to take authorship. No technical controversy could be noted. The document was marked as dead WG document in September 2018. 3GPP delegates noticed the change of status and that there are references to this draft from 3GPP specifications, after which a new author was finally stepping up, resulting in MMUSIC re-adoption in April 2019 after affirmation that the new author was willing to drive the document until publication. Since then, progress was fairly good with multiple revisions and receiving decent review in the WG. One of the co-authors is also active in 3GPP standardization, which should help ensure that the document is suitable for the mentioned 3GPP references.

Document Quality:

Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted? 

There are no known implementations of the protocol beyond experimental proof-of-concept. Some vendors have indicated plans to implement. 3GPP TS 24.371 references this draft normatively when MSRP is to be supported in 3GPP WebRTC datachannel context.

The general document structure and content follows that of draft-ietf-mmusic-t140-usage-data-channel (in RFC Editor's Queue at the time of writing) which is describing anoter sub-protocol (t140) to WebRTC data channel and that received significant review with respect to how to best structure such document.

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd?
Who is the Responsible Area Director?

Bo Burman is the Document Shepherd.
Murray Kucherawy is the Responsible Area Director.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.

The document shepherd read through versions -11, -17, -19, and -20 (the current version) of the document in its entirety and found no remaining issues in -20.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

No.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.

Not applicable.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.

There are no concerns.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?

The authors have confirmed.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

No IPR disclosures were filed.

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

The WG consensus is as solid as can be expected. It is mostly representing the strong concurrence of a few active individuals beyond the authors, but where  those individuals have solid IETF and MMUSIC experience.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) 

No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. 

There is one ID nit warning about a non-RFC2606-compliant FQDN, but that is part of the change history and will be removed before publication.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. 

Not applicable.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? 

Yes.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? 

No.

(15) Are there downward normative references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. 

There are no downward normative references.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. 

The document updates RFC 4975, which is shown in the header, abstract, and further mentioned in the introduction. Section 7 is dedicated to describe this update.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 8126). 

The document shepherd has reviewed IANA registrations in accordance with the above and found no issues.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. 

No new registries are requested.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc.

The extended MSRP URI syntax in section 4.1 is trivial.

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?

Not applicable.
Back